Voters to Obama and Congress: Stop!

Jennifer Rubin - 02.10.2010 - 9:42 AM

Summing up its latest poll results, the Washington Post reports:

The survey paints a portrait of a restless and dissatisfied electorate at the beginning of a critical election year. More than seven in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and as many say they’re inclined to look for new congressional representation as said so in 1994 and 2006, the last times that control of Congress shifted.

Asked how they would vote in the November House elections, Americans split evenly — 46 percent siding with the Democrats, 46 percent with the Republicans. As recently as four months ago, Democrats held a 51 to 39 percent advantage on this question.

(Other surveys show a lead for Republicans in generic congressional polling.) Many of the poll’s details should cause the Obami, were they inclined to actually pay attention to bad news, some alarm. On health care, the deficit, jobs, and the economy more than 50 percent disapprove of Obama’s performance. By a 55-to-39 percent margin, respondents favor military tribunals over civilian trials for terrorists.

Democrats in Congress should take note as well. By a 57-to-36 percent margin, voters are pleased that the Democrats no longer have a filibuster majority. Ominously for incumbent Democrats, 56 percent are looking around for an alternative to their representative and only 26 percent approve of the job Congress is doing.

These numbers are even worse than they might appear, considering that the respondents were “adults” — not registered or likely voters. Moreover, the sample included only 26 percent Republicans. (Rasmussen shows GOP party identification at 32 percent, Gallup, at 41 percent.)

Simply put, what this and other polls tell us is that Americans don’t like what Obama and the Democrats are doing. It is the substance of their agenda that is unpopular. They don’t mind “gridlock” — in fact, they seem to welcome it, if the alternative is more of what they have seen coming out of Washington. Those incumbents on the ballot in 2010 better be able to make the case to voters that they understand their aversion to the “big bang” agenda of Obama-Pelosi-Reid and that they will do their part to curb, not facilitate, the big government proposals that have frightened voters. That’s a hard case to make for the Democrats, who have already voted repeatedly for that now unpopular agenda. And that is why 2010 promises to be a very scary election for anyone with a “D” next to his or her name.

All Obama, All the Time

CanadaFreePress.com

Obama addressed the Baltimore conference of Republican members of Congress with yet another familiar excuse, it’s all George W. Bush’s fault

By Alan Caruba Friday, January 29, 2010

We are back to the Obama administration’s original theory of governance, “All Obama, all the time.” Having basked on the spotlight during his rather long State of the Union Speech, Obama addressed the Baltimore conference of Republican members of Congress with yet another familiar excuse, it’s all George W. Bush’s fault.

In one year in office he has learned nothing or, if he has, the lessons have been dismissed as irrelevant to his mission of “transforming” a nation that is far more focused on just surviving the worst Recession/Depression since the 1930s.

Obama seems mystified that, with the greatest majority in Congress in decades, he is unable to get Democrats to coalesce behind his major initiatives such as healthcare “reform.” Republicans wisely decided to avoid being a part of this debacle and have since been labeled “the Party of no.” Sometimes, the right answer is no.

In other parts of the world, our system of government is baffling, particularly for the way it deliberately slows the passage of various legislative proposals. Writing recently in El Mundo, a leading newspaper in Spain, Prof. Rafael Navarro-Valls, said, “The problem, it seems to me, is that we should first consider the very system of power in America. When speaking of the U.S. President as the most powerful man in the world, one forgets the rules of the political circus in which he functions.”

“America produced a political system that is burdened and slowed down by a game of opposing powers,” said Navorro-Valls, who noted that this was intentional on the part of the Founding Fathers who had “fears of kings and tyrants.”

If Obama is unable to lead his own party when it had a lock on political power in Congress, his ability to do so for the rest of the nation is indeed in question and Navorro-Valls noted that “reality is relentless when we come down from the blue sky of promises to the vulgar world of facts, so the gap between what was offered and the reality concerns the electorate.”

The power of the American electorate was seen most recently in Massachusetts, in Virginia, and in New Jersey. It will be seen again in November.

Around the world, America is watched closely and what happens here is news everywhere else. This is particularly true in the Middle East when America, following 9/11, invaded Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban and al Qaeda, and then invaded Iraq to remove a regional destabilizing figure, Saddam Hussein. And, of course, America has long been an ally of Israel through several wars perpetrated against it by Arab nations and, lately, the Iranian proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Writing in The Jordan Times, Hasan Abu Nimah took a look at “The Arabs and Obama after a year.” The Arab fixation on the “Arab-Israeli conflict” remains the obstacle to any rational resolution; it is now past sixty years since Israel became a reconstituted sovereign nation and, with the exception of Jordan and Egypt, none of the 22 Arab states with their 360 million people, have been willing to accept that fact.

Nimah bluntly said that “Until the Arabs take control of their own destiny, they will continue to wait and hope in vain that rescue will come, if not from Obama’s promises, then from someone else’s.” None of them want that someone else to be Osama bin Ladin.

The answer, of course, is to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to seek peace with it. That is not likely to happen. Nimah wrote, “The Arabs expected that with Obama in office they would see the beginning of the end of the occupation of their land.” Israel is not an occupier. Its claim to the Holy Land predates both Christianity and Islam by thousands of years.

Georgiy Bovt, writing in Izvestia, the Russian newspaper, also took a look at Obama’s first year. Suffice it to say he tore into the young President, along with the “reset” message he tried to send Russia and the rest of the world. Bovt said, “While Obama practiced conciliatory gestures, the camps of al Qaeda prepared and continues to prepare for future attacks.” He ripped the political correctness that leaves America vulnerable.

“How many more of these ‘resets’ will this pillar of modern political correctness be able to withstand, with the assertion that terrorism has no nationality, nor religious affiliation?” asked Bovt. Good question!

The Russian analyst concluded saying, “We hope that he doesn’t fall quickly and disgracefully.”

Reading from the newspapers around the world, the message is the same, a distinct sense of disappointment and apprehension regarding Obama’s first year. They are not alone. If the polls are any indication—and they are—approval of Obama’s performance in office is dropping rapidly.

All Obama, all the time is not the answer. It is the problem.

January 27, 2010 'Free Gaza' movement and the 54 Democrats who support it

Clarice Feldman
Canada Free Press has a list of CAIR supported congressmen who are fans of Hamas. They are all Democrats.

Perhaps the savvy ADL head Abe Foxman just missed this somehow.

The entire "Free Gaza" movement is a Hamas propaganda project that allows it to demand that Israel open its borders, without actually using the P word, for peace, since Hamas doesn't even believe in phony peace negotiations. So Pro-Hamas activists, whether it's former Saddam supporter, George Galloway's Viva Palestina or their American flavors talk only about "The People of Gaza", deemphasize Hamas and emphasize the supposed "suffering" within Gaza.

But the call for Israel to open its borders is nothing more than a way of making it easier for terrorists to strike. Ellison's letter buries its real agenda in paragraphs of prose about how everyone will be better off, except somehow Hamas, if Israel complies with their demand... that Israel ease the movement of people in and out of Gaza. This of course is a fancy way of saying, "Let my Suicide Bombers go".

None of this is up till now is shocking. But what Congressman Keith Ellison accomplished was to convince 53 other Democratic congressmen to join him in this venture. It is not particularly surprising to find the House's most radical anti-Israel voices signing their names onto Ellison's letter. It would be inconceivable if a letter aiding Hamas did not carry the signatures of Barbara Lee, Jim Moran or Jim McDermott, who helped Ellison spearhead the whole campaign. It is essentially inconceivable that any letter circulated in congress opposing Israel would not get their signature.

The list also includes Representatives Nick Rahall, Diane Watson, Pete Stark, William Delahunt, John Conyers - 54 Democrats in all.

Clarice Feldman

Obama to Seek Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

NEWSMAX.COM
Wednesday, 27 Jan 2010 07:44 PM

WASHINGTON – Reaching out to a skeptical gay community, President Barack Obama on Wednesday urged Congress to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, but neither made a commitment to suspend the practice in the interim nor issued a deadline.

Obama's reference to the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" practice took only 32 words of his State of the Union address, but drew criticism from Democratic allies and Republican opponents alike. It also underscored the challenge Obama faces, not just with Congress but also with the Pentagon, where some top officials have been strident in their support for the Clinton-era policy.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," Obama said in prepared remarks.

It fell short for gay activists. An organization representing service members who had been dismissed called on Obama to push a repeal in the upcoming Pentagon budget and Clinton's adviser on gay issues called Obama's performance in the first year "an almost complete disaster."

Kevin Nix, communications director at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Tuesday the group wants Obama to repeal the policy the same way Clinton introduced it in 1993 — through the defense authorization bill.

"Almost 17 years later, this is the way that President Obama and Congress and the Pentagon should end this," said Nix, whose group estimates more that 13,500 gays and lesbians have been dismissed since 1994.

Clinton's adviser, who has been a vocal critic of how Obama has handled gay constituents, was less reserved.

"In 1999, Bill Clinton became the first president ever to talk about gay rights in a State of the Union address. Eleven years later, not much has changed," said Richard Socarides. Talking again about ending the policy "without a moratorium on the witch hunts and expulsions and without even a plan for future action, just won't cut it," he said.

"Look, we are not second-class citizens and our rights are not second-term problems," he said.

Obama's relationship with the gay community has been rocky since his election. Gays and lesbians objected to the invitation of evangelist Rev. Rick Warren to participate in Obama's inauguration because of Warren's support for repealing gay marriage in California.

As president, Obama hasn't taken any concrete steps urging the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. Some former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged the policy is flawed and Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen signed off on a journal article that called for lifting the ban.

Yet Mullen's lawyers have urged a delay that could go into the middle of the next presidential election.

"Now is not the time," the in-house legal counsel for Mullen wrote recently in a memorandum. "The importance of winning the wars we are in, along with the stress on the force, our body of knowledge and the number of unknowns, demand that we act with deliberation."

Mullen received the conflicting advice this month about whether to move quickly to lift the 1993 ban, and it is not clear what he will recommend to Obama. Although allowing gays to serve openly in the military was one of Obama's campaign promises, the issue was put on a back burner during his first year in office. Some liberal supporters and several congressional Democrats are pushing for action.

The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee urged Obama to listen to the uniforms.

"No action to change the law should be taken by the administration or by this Congress until we have a full and complete understanding of the reasons why the current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way," Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., wrote to Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "whether a change in law will improve readiness in measurable ways, and what the implications for and effects on military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order and discipline are entailed with a change in law."

© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Hamas' 54 Democratic Congressmen: Muslim Brotherhood is in da House

The Muslim Brotherhood is operating at breakneck speed with the Islamist in the White House. They have achieved absolute intellectual dominance. Everything you read or see about Islam from the media or government or public school or university comes from them (CAIR, MAS, ICNA, ISNA etc.)

The Muslim Brotherhood should be rebuked much the way the Nazi party was rebuked during WWII. Same war, different century.

Sultan has the dirt on the dirty who voted dirty:

Hamas' 54 Democratic Congressmen

Keith Ellison, widely hailed as America's first Muslim congressman, could more accurately be described as CAIR and Hamas' man in Congress. Congressman Ellison has been a regular presence at CAIR fundraisers and at pro-Hamas rallies in the United States. As a former member of Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, Ellison has enough anti-semitic and Islamist credentials to satisfy anyone, and had expressed openly anti-semitic beliefs in the past.

[...]

The entire "Free Gaza" movement is a Hamas propaganda project that allows it to demand that Israel open its borders, without actually using the P word, for peace, since Hamas doesn't even believe in phony peace negotiations. So Pro-Hamas activists, whether it's former Saddam supporter, George Galloway's Viva Palestina or their American flavors talk only about "The People of Gaza", deemphasize Hamas and emphasize the supposed "suffering" within Gaza.

They are this century's nazis. Atlas covered them here and here and here.

But the call for Israel to open its borders is nothing more than a way of making it easier for terrorists to strike. Ellison's letter buries its real agenda in paragraphs of prose about how everyone will be better off, except somehow Hamas, if Israel complies with their demand... that Israel ease the movement of people in and out of Gaza. This of course is a fancy way of saying, "Let my Suicide Bombers go".

None of this is up till now is shocking. But what Congressman Keith Ellison accomplished was to convince 53 other Democratic congressmen to join him in this venture. It is not particularly surprising to find the House's most radical anti-Israel voices signing their names onto Ellison's letter. It would be inconceivable if a letter aiding Hamas did not carry the signatures of Barbara Lee, Jim Moran or Jim McDermott, who helped Ellison spearhead the whole campaign. It is essentially inconceivable that any letter circulated in congress opposing Israel would not get their signature.

Jim Moran had managed to blame even the Iraq War on the Jews and McDermott was actually named CAIR's Public Official of the Year. Neither is West Virginia Arab Congressman, Nick Rahall, who is the Democratic party's version of Darrel Issa, who is tied to CAIR as well, and previously voted against Israel's right to defend itself. Rahall is also the top recipient of CAIR donations. The likes of Diane Watson or Pete Stark aren't complete surprises either. Pete Stark has a history of being both anti-Israel and unstable. Neither is Carolyn Kilpatrick, who voted against Israel's right to defend itself, and against condemning terrorist attacks on Israel. Kilpatrick, like virtually every Democrat on the list, is also tied to CAIR.

Then there's William Delahunt, who all but openly expressed the hope that a former Cheney aide would be targeted by Al Queda. John Conyers signing on to this while awaiting prison is no real shocker either. The man has all but endorsed Sharia law in America. Or John Dingell who like many Detroit politicians has gone whole hog with the Islamist Follow Traveler thing.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been waging her own private war on Israel, right down to issuing an imperial demand that Israeli Ambassador Oren attend the national conference of the far left anti-Israel group, J Street. McCollum famously belittled Hamas' shelling of Israel as nothing more than a drug gang's drive by shooting and repeated the discredited white phosphorous smear. Again, no more surprising than Chaka Fattah's presence on the list.

Then there's Eric Massa, a former Republican turned turncoat Democrat, Massa has been consistently loudly anti-war and to the left. Like virtually every congressman on this list, he's pushed for a phony ceasefire, that would naturally be one sided. Considering his increasingly unhinged radicalism, and that he has an election coming up soon, Massa must be pretty confident that the nutroots can get him reelected.

It is of course no surprise that this list weighs heavily toward Minnesota and Michigan, where CAIR is strong. But it also includes twelve congressmen from California, 3 from New Jersey, 4 from New York and 6 from Massachusetts. These numbers are not mere statistics, they define the rising influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American politics, state by state.

And it is instructive to note how many of the congressmen and congresswomen on the list are funded by CAIR money. Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez, Betty McCollum, Lois Capps, Bill Pascrell, Elijah Cummings, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, John Dingell, James Moran, Nick Rahall, Andre Carson, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Jim McDermott are among the top receivers of CAIR money in congress.

Of the top 11 CAIR moneygetters in congress, Nick Rahall, James Moran, Darrel Issa, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Dingell, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Shelia Jackson Lee and Jim McDerrmott-- 7 out of 11 signed on to Ellison's letter. That makes the Gaza letter a CAIR project. 5 on that list voted against condemning attacks on Israel.

And the letter is simply an opening shot as part of a broader campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood and its American proxies to attack Israel and promote its own Hamas wing. Its proxies can't openly come out for Hamas, not in the United States anyway. Not from members of congress. But they can work toward a common goal. With this letter, Hamas's masters in the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated that they can use CAIR to gather 54 congressmen together to push its agenda. That is quite a leap for an organization that is the unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas terror. It also demonstrates that Amerabia isn't as far away as we have thought.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 04:48 AM

The Coming Democrat Counteroffensive

AmericanThinker.com
January 20, 2010
By Steve McCann

The unexpected election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, driven equally by opposition to the Obama agenda and an inept Democratic candidate, will fuel optimism that Republicans and conservatives will recapture the Congress. However, with ten months to go before the midterm election, this confidence is misplaced and misguided, and it will play into the hands of the Democrat strategists.

Success in taking over the Congress from the entrenched Democrats will require an understanding of their tactics and a unified strategy on the part of all conservatives, libertarians, and independents who recognize why the election is so pivotal. The Democratic machine will pull out all the stops to maintain control of Congress, particularly in light of the Brown victory.

The 2010 midterm elections will be nationalized, and money spent by the Democrats and their allies will be staggering, as will the level of vitriol and mudslinging. Anything and everything must be expected.

The current Democratic leaders will rely on two assumptions: 1) that the electorate, after decades of peace, prosperity, and lack of civic education, is generally ignorant and apathetic towards the machinations in Washington, D.C.; 2) that gerrymandering, skewed election laws, and political financing regulations -- and most importantly, the fragmented nature of the opposition -- will greatly benefit the Democrats. The Left will be confident in the reelection of their own congressmen in sufficient number to maintain control of the levers of power in Washington.

Either rationale stems from one central point: citizen apathy. However slowly, that indifference is beginning to change, as noted by the polls showing a resurgence of conservatism, particularly as reflected by the tea party movement. But a crusade based on emotion and held together only by opposition to single issues cannot succeed in achieving the monumental change necessary to save the country.

At this point in January 2010, the tenuous, multi-faceted coalition that makes up the grassroots resistance to the radical Obama agenda comprises those opposed to illegal immigration, amnesty, excessive government spending, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, gun control, heath care reform, free trade, foreign entanglements, Wall Street, and those who desire to see every Republican politician hanged. Each group expects the other to agree fully with its signature issue.

It is for that reason that the Left treats the conservative movement with such disdain, knowing full well that this coalition has a potential internal time bomb which can explode prior to any major election. All the Democrats have to do is light the fuse.

Everyone is aghast that the Democrats and the liberal media have employed a base and vile vulgarism not only to describe the activities of those who are sincerely concerned for the country's future, but also to denigrate the individuals, their motives, appearance, and social status. This tactic is used because it works.

It works because it distracts from the real issues by fomenting discussions about what is said and forcing a response to an absurd accusation or portrayal. The pundits, politicians, and leaders on the right feel obligated to respond and deny the allegations, thus giving them more credibility and allowing the Left to find ways to make even more outrageous charges, thus perpetuating the cycle.

The Left must personalize every policy disagreement or election by denigrating their opposition, thus steering all conversation away from what is most important: the future of the United States as either a capitalist or socialist country.

A codicil to this strategy is to abet the potential fragmentation of the conservative alliance by falsely accusing an opposition candidate of being less than committed to a particular policy, thus creating an emphasis on the importance of a single issue for one or the other of the myriad groups within the movement. Many within these aggregations are hypersensitive and on constant alert for any perceived slight from their fellow coalition members.

Many have proffered the theory that the Left resorts to name-calling and hyperbole because they cannot defend their socialist and secular philosophy. While it is true that they must resort to emotion to sell their theories to the masses, the political strategy to achieve power is fragmenting the opposition by questioning their motives, accusing them of hypocrisy or criminal and unethical behavior, and by using election laws to skew close elections against them. As long as this strategy works, the Left does not have to defend its philosophical positions.

The only way to defeat the Left is to stop playing by their rules.

First, it must be understood that the enemy we are fighting, the Liberals or the Left, makes up 20% of the country's population. Moderates are 36%, and conservatives are more than 40%. Based on that breakdown, one might assume that something like 67% of moderates lean to the conservative view. Thus, 64% of the citizenry are potential voters against what is happening in Congress and the White House.

Why does the conservative coalition allow 20% of the people to dictate how or why campaigns are conducted? Why do conservatives still curry favor from the once-mainstream media, who in a marketing death wish choose to appeal to this same 20%? Why, within this alliance, is there so much suspicion among each faction? And lastly, why is it not understood that only by the in-place organization of the Republican Party, under conservative control, can the current tide in Washington be reversed?

Conservatives must discipline themselves to stop being so thin-skinned about what the media, bloggers, and pundits on the Left say about them. These immature and self-righteous blowhards must be ignored and allowed to talk among themselves without any response from anyone on the right. The only response necessary is to correct or rebut immediately and firmly the mistakes and misrepresentations of the once-mainstream media.

The Tea Party Movement, instead of reveling in its declared independence, should immediately either join forces with or take over the local Republican Party establishment in its respective county or state.

Each person has one political or social issue that is of the highest importance to him. Regardless of what it is, everyone must now realize that without individual freedom and liberty, plus a limited government -- all of which are now under massive assault by the Obama administration -- it matters little what that issue is.

Everyone must stop the absurd belief that one should vote for the person and not the party. The lesson of the passage of the Health Care Reform Act in Congress should never be forgotten: There is no such thing as a "conservative Democrat" once installed in Congress. There is a major difference between the parties. Conservatives can influence what happens in the Republican Party; they cannot do so in the Democratic Party.

Above all, everyone in the current coalition opposing what is happening in Washington, D.C. must unite behind one theme and put all differences aside. That cause should be this: For future generations, the United States must remain the dominant global economic force able to underwrite being the unrivaled military power in the world. The destructive path the current government in Washington has chosen will relegate our country to long-term economic stagnation and secondary world status.

The upcoming midterm election is one of the most pivotal in history. Despite the current optimism surrounding the outcome of the November 2010 election, the conservative movement will not triumph unless it unites, remains disciplined, and above all, understands and learns from its adversaries.

The overwhelming and unexpected victory in Massachusetts should not be allowed to lead to complacency or overconfidence. The Democrats and the Obama administration will be more determined than ever to hold on to the power necessary to transform the United States into their image.

The Democrats Start to Fracture

AmericanThinker.com
By J. Robert Smith
January 21, 2010

In the coming weeks and months, the best political spectator sport around might not be Democrats versus Republicans or conservatives versus liberals, but Democrats of all stripes turning on one another.

Other than demagoguery, what Democrats are most accomplished at is fratricide (think back to the '60s and '70s). In the wake of Scott Brown's hosing of Martha Coakley, the Democrats are about to have a good old-fashioned civil war. Pity for them; bully for America.

The Democrats are dividing roughly along these lines: left ideologues against pols, the latter being those congressional Democrats who like their jobs and don't intend to wrap themselves in the European Union flag and jump off a craggy cliff into the Potomac.

It's Pelosi and Frank and their ilk versus Heath Shuler and his ilk. But given Tuesday night's win for Scott Brown in deep blue Massachusetts, it may be more than self-styled Democratic moderates who choose to defect. A few liberals may join in, too.

President Obama is showing every sign of being a cliff-jumper. Word out of the White House is that he plans to go on a populist offensive. In other words, he aims to demagogue anyone and anything in an attempt to divert voters' attention from his utterly woeful, ideologically blind performance to date. And did I mention that under the cover of a hate, resentment, and envy campaign, Mr. Obama and his chief congressional lieutenants, the envenomed Nancy Pelosi and the passive-aggressive Harry Reid, will still scheme to foist statism on America?

While the President's bravado may warm the hearts of Huffington Post and Daily Kos denizens, and while he may win plaudits from the Davids (Broder, Gergen, and Brooks) and the New York Times (among other liberal mouthpieces) for his supposed shrewdness, plenty of work-a-day congressional Democrats aren't going to enlist in a lemmings' march into the sea.

Self-preservation is a powerful instinct. The Coakley upending is the fork in the road for Democrats who are more enamored of themselves than stinky left-wing orthodoxy. The marker at the road's fork points right, toward the middle ground. It's where these Democrats know they must go if they are to stand a prayer of retaining their seats in November.

With every passing day, expect a few, and then lots of sobered Democrats to take the road right, regardless of the sharp disapproval of Pelosi and Reid or the threats of the White House Capone crew.

Congressional members peeling away from their party's failing president is nothing new in Washington annals. LBJ and Richard Nixon could have given you earfuls.

But left-wing activists and fundraisers and money-givers aren't going to take defections lightly. While keeping guns trained on Mr. Obama to ensure his fealty, expect left-wingers to turn other guns on congressional Democrats cheeky enough to scuttle ideology in favor of survival.

Nowadays, the left isn't so much a movement as it is a death pact. If you've taken its money or accepted its campaign ground troops or benefited from its uncoordinated expenditures -- and most Democrats have -- then you're on the hook. It's like the mafia: Once you're made, you can't be unmade. Woe to the good fella or gal who wishes to part company.

Don't expect defecting Democrats to go gentle into the night. When the left opens fire on them, expect them to fire back. It's to their advantage. Positioning will be critical at this point on to the defectors. They'll need to demonstrate to voters that they've separated themselves from the dead weight that are Obama's health care legislation and his cap-and-tax and immigration reform aims (only liberals can turn "reform" into a dirty word).

This Democratic civil war means that the president's health care reform legislation is as dead as the Articles of Confederation. Cap-and-tax proposals based on specious climate change arguments and economy-killing provisions are already floundering, and they will go the way of the dinosaur if the president, Pelosi, and Reid push them harder. Immigration reform is a sticky-wicket. Attempting to liberalize immigration laws at a time when the economy is hurting and unemployment hovers around ten percent isn't the swiftest move.

Watch to see what higher-profile Democratic senators like Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln do. Throw Jim Webb in the mix as well. Unlike the wretched Ben Nelson or the oily Mary Landrieu, who have so conspicuously sold their souls to Mr. Obama and the left, the aforementioned senators have a limited opportunity to act to rehabilitate themselves by jumping off the Obama train to nowhere. If these senators are as self-serving as I suspect them to be, that's three votes that Mr. Obama and Majority Leader Reid can't count on. And more names can be added to the list.

If the Democrats' civil war plays out as expected, the result will be legislative torpor, magnificent wheels-squealing, and grinding-to-a-halt gridlock for 2010. Much to the relief of taxpayers and Main Street Americans, the 111^th Congress will do no more damage...because it can't.

Civil wars typically don't have pretty endings. This one won't, either. A bad economy made worse by a "waste no crisis" president and his henchmen and a War on Terror that's devolving into an ACLU parody combined with a fracturing and fighting Democratic Party is the stuff of electoral bloodbaths, perhaps eclipsing the Democrats' 1994 carnage.

But that's for another day. Right now, let's just thank conservatives, tea party patriots, and independents (and some rank-and-file Democrats) for Scott Brown's victory. Bay Staters, along with their brethren earlier in Virginia and New Jersey, have a made a stout first line of defense against Mr. Obama's and the left's encroachment on our liberties.

Congress Probes Alleged U.S. Bribes to Afghan Warlords

U.S. would be unintentionally involved in a protection racket and indirectly financing the enemy


WASHINGTON -- Congress is investigating allegations that U.S. tax dollars are being paid to warlords and the Taliban for security on supply routes used to truck food, water, fuel and ammunition to American troops in Afghanistan.

If the allegations are true, then the U.S. would be unintentionally involved in a protection racket and indirectly financing the enemy, Rep. John Tierney, the Massachusetts Democrat leading the inquiry, said Wednesday.

The Obama administration is escalating the U.S. mission in Afghanistan amid concerns that corruption throughout the country is a major roadblock to progress.

Bribes and kickbacks are frequently used to do business there, raising worries among many Democrats on Capitol Hill that the U.S. investment will fall short of stabilizing Afghanistan's shaky government.

Tierney is seeking documents from the Defense Department and companies connected to a $2.1 billion U.S. contract to transport goods and materiel through Pakistan to Bagram Airfield, the U.S. military's main hub in Afghanistan. From Bagram, the supplies are distributed to several hundred smaller camps and bases spread throughout the country.

Tierney said his staff has been told by credible informants that security guards hired by the trucking companies funnel money to the local warlords or the Taliban to ensure the convoys get to their destinations unscathed.

"It's protection money," said Tierney, who heads the House Oversight and Government Reform national security subcommittee. "Early indications are payments are either made as a lump sum for a period of time, or payment per container."

Multiple layers of subcontractors are often used in these transactions, making it difficult to follow the trail of cash, Tierney added.

The Defense Department had no immediate response to Tierney's investigation.

At a Dec. 2 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the long, rugged supply lines to landlocked Afghanistan through Pakistan's port city of Karachi offer numerous opportunities for fraud and corruption that pad the Taliban's accounts.

But Clinton said the problem is not solely an Afghan one and neither is the solution. "We just have to be honest here about how complex and difficult this problem is," she said.

The arrangement for moving supplies throughout Afghanistan, known as the Host Nation Trucking contract, began in May 2009. There are eight companies handling the work.

Before this umbrella contract was in place, there were far more contractors involved and less oversight, according to John Dawkins, chief executive officer of the Mesopotamia Group in Kabul, one of the current contractors.

But he also said it's no secret that payments are made to ensure safe passage through dangerous patches. Without U.S. or NATO security to guard the convoys and the routes, which is a risky and time intensive task, there's no other option.

"We have to pay certain security companies to get from one place to another place," Dawkins said. "And everybody's interconnected and there's huge money involved. If you don't pay for your security, you're on your own."

Dawkins also downplayed the notion that much of the money flows to the Taliban. "Most of the people are just bandits on the road," he said. "I think you'd have a really hard time defining exactly who the Taliban are."